The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

[DJBrad]

Interesting place for a garage out there in the background....

Time for me to go land/second home shopping

That’s a boathouse Chris. C’mon man!

 

[BarnBuilder]

Well, I’m on vacation just sittin on a dock. I hope you all had a nice long summer vacation or one coming up.

View attachment 899202



No need to go shopping as I did alot of shopping the past 10 years. I’m now looking at real estate, land, and machines.

Nice view my friend





This is where I will park my A** for 10 days starting Wednesday

Ya'll have fun now ya hear .....

 

[MAJoe]

As long as the weapon was "lawfully owned" at whatever time prior to 8/1 that is. I was interested if you could add the "evil features" to an assault weapon prior to 8/1 and have it be G2G, my reading of the bill says no as it likely was not "lawfully owned". It did seem to suggest (to me) that post 7/20 rifles are fine as they were "lawfully owned" as long as in previous AWB compliance form.

Or it could be interpreted the current way. If it’s exempt from the AWB definition then it doesn’t need to comply with the current feature test and you can configure how you see fit after this is effective. You can’t comply with the features test because any AR fails the new feature test unless it’s fixed mag.

 

[AJK129]

Nice view my friend View attachment 899226

This is where I will park my A** for 10 days starting Wednesday

Ya'll have fun now ya hear .....

Going to a lake ive never been to Saturday, Ill see if I can compete with you and @DJBrad

 

[drosie]

Or it could be interpreted the current way. If it’s exempt from the AWB definition then it doesn’t need to comply with the current feature test and you can configure how you see fit after this is effective. You can’t comply with the features test because any AR fails the new feature test unless it’s fixed mag.

Well it is interesting if you interpret "lawfully owned" meaning possessed with an LTC, all assault weapons prior to 8/1 are grandfathered assault weapons and seeing there is no way could meet the new definition therefore evil features are G2G?

 

[drgrant]

What @pastera has added to this is actually very well-reasoned, but my belief is that there is MORE than enough ambiguity about all these concepts to keep the State from even trying to enforce it. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but like I've said several times in one of these seven or eight threads, I'm WAY past caring.

The Commonwealth can go f*** itself.

Nobody wants to talk about it, but even under the old laws there was a lot of ambiguity. This new pile of shit is worse. I expect DAs will only cherry pick the "retards can understand it" portions to enforce like the CUI bac limit etc.

 

[mcshooter]

GOAls facebook page got hit with a 30 day suspension of posting....

 

[drgrant]

We'll all be criminals.

Lol some of us just accepted that premise in 2016 or long before.... and life gets a lot easier. Sure beats "deeking around in constant fear" as most gun owners do in this state.

 

[Horatio Alger Jr]

GOAls facebook page got hit with a 30 day suspension of posting....

Why?

 

[drgrant]

Why?

Because Facebook is garbage?

 

[Ron Jablonski]

GOAls facebook page got hit with a 30 day suspension of posting....

Sucks, now my parents won't know what's going on.

 

[Ron Jablonski]

Why?

Because they interpret criticism of gun control as mis information.

 

[Gunowner80]

What I think I see here is that 7/20/2016 was never law , however, the language in this new bill is trying to make it seem like it was law. This is why so many of us get confused of the firearms post 7/20 till 8/1. Some say in that timeframe, they are good to go while others say in that timeframe they are not. I think the reason for the confusion is because we all know 7/20 was never law, but they wrote this bill too kind of like say, see, it was law the entire time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Nobody wants to talk about it, but even under the old laws there was a lot of ambiguity. This new pile of shit is worse. I expect DAs will only cherry pick the "retards can understand it" portions to enforce like the CUI bac limit etc.

Or when the decide someone is getting uppity talking about stuff like demanding a trial in which case they can search for any technical violations.

 

[Beretta92FS]

What I think I see here is that 7/20/2016 was never law , however, the language in this new bill is trying to make it seem like it was law. This is why so many of us get confused of the firearms post 7/20 till 8/1. Some say in that timeframe, they are good to go while others say in that timeframe they are not. I think the reason for the confusion is because we all know 7/20 was never law, but they wrote this bill too kind of like say, see, it was law the entire time.

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Someone at the conference committee probably insisted that the 7/20 must be there, but at the same time they realized they wouldn’t get away with it if they retroactively banned everything after 7/20, hence the put in the 8/1/2024 grandfathering in addition. They are probably loving to see our confusion now.

 

[Individualist]

Just booked my reservation for 8/2.

 

[DW357]

Well, I’m on vacation just sittin on a dock. I hope you all had a nice long summer vacation or one coming up.

View attachment 899202



No need to go shopping as I did alot of shopping the past 10 years. I’m now looking at real estate, land, and machines.

You mean you’re not shitting your pants?!??….

Nice. I was on vacation this week which was long overdue. Looked at a 22 foot center console boat which I’ll be purchasing soon, went to the beach, did some commercial striper fishing. Good vacation for sure. No pant shitting and no panic buying as I’m stocked up

 

[DJBrad]

You mean you’re not shitting your pants?!??….

Nice. I was on vacation this week which was long overdue. Looked at a 22 foot center console boat which I’ll be purchasing soon, went to the beach, did some commercial striper fishing. Good vacation for sure. No pant shitting and no panic buying as I’m stocked up

Pants are ultra clean.

Nicely done and good luck on the boat purchase. I hope you enjoy years of sea worthy fun.

 

[Martinilover]

99.5% of cops are clueless about even the current regulations, so there is no chance they will understand these, or what constitutes what on an AR, etc. So just say hey, how do you like my pre-ban?

Agree 100% - do they even know or understand pinned stocks or pinned / welded compensators ? Is there a real need to even do it with how clueless they are?

 

[Martinilover]

According to the summary GOAL posted. 8/1 date is irrelevant for grandfathering. This was my reading of the bill as well.

“Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. Technically there was no registration requirement prior to the passage of this bill.”

Now I don’t understand this. Everyone is running out a buying ARs this week and using the MA gun portal to “ register them” Are they safe ? Or will the state come after them because you’re basically admitting you just bought a AR after 2016?

 

[Picton]

Now I don’t understand this. Everyone is running out a buying ARs this week and using the MA gun portal to “ register them” Are they safe ? Or will the state come after them because you’re basically admitting you just bought a AR after 2016?

Again...

No. The state will not "come after them." The state has far better things to do with its time and money than "come after them," especially with a rickety and untested law that is already at risk of being overturned.

They're relying on fear. Don't be afeared.

 

[souper]

Now I don’t understand this. Everyone is running out a buying ARs this week and using the MA gun portal to “ register them” Are they safe ? Or will the state come after them because you’re basically admitting you just bought a AR after 2016?

No one understands, it’s all speculation. I’d say the majority opinion is that all ARs will be legal to possess if registered prior to 8/2/2024. Time will tell if that is the correct interpretation… or likely never.

 

[Lowbird]

Just booked my reservation for 8/2.

View attachment 899287

 

[teej1074]

No one understands, it’s all speculation. I’d say the majority opinion is that all ARs will be legal to possess if registered prior to 8/2/2024. Time will tell if that is the correct interpretation… or likely never.

I think de facto legal on post-2106 ARs is more accurate... there's no way Healey will let 2016 go completely until a court demands it. But enforcement would create a hot mess and potentially fast-track the bill's downfall. Leaving it vague but not prosecuting allows them to continue scaring a lot of people into compliance and keep most of the political benefit, with lower risk of blowing the whole thing up.

 

[MAJoe]

Well it is interesting if you interpret "lawfully owned" meaning possessed with an LTC, all assault weapons prior to 8/1 are grandfathered assault weapons and seeing there is no way could meet the new definition therefore evil features are G2G?

I see what you mean now. No, there’s no reason to reverse compliance work before 8/1.

 

[vcman]

Yeah that’s an important point.

Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts states from enacting certain types of laws. Among these prohibitions is the passing of “ex post facto” laws. An ex post facto law is one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law.

The specific text states: “No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”

This clause ensures that states cannot:

1. Retroactively Criminalize Conduct: States cannot pass laws that make an act a crime after it has been committed. For example, if an action was legal at the time it was performed, a state cannot later pass a law making that action illegal and then prosecute individuals who performed the act before the law was passed.

2. Increase Punishments Retroactively: States cannot enact laws that increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed. If a person committed an offense and was sentenced under the laws in place at that time, the state cannot later pass a law that imposes a harsher penalty and apply it to that person.

3. Change Legal Consequences Retroactively: States are prohibited from passing laws that alter the legal consequences or statuses of actions taken in the past. This includes laws that might change the legal status of a person or the results of previous legal actions.

The prohibition against ex post facto laws is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of individuals from arbitrary and vindictive legislation. It ensures that individuals have notice of the laws and the consequences of their actions at the time they act, thus protecting them from retroactive legislative changes.

U a lawyer or something? I may need you if massachusset go after me and my ar10 lol. Gona have to set up a gofundme page to pay ya

 

[drosie]

I see what you mean now. No, there’s no reason to reverse compliance work before 8/1.

I have to come to that conclusion. After 8/1 I am not sure any level of compliance matters though as they are assault weapons through and through. This may open up the ability to bring them to a previously banned configuration. The old law and definitions will no longer exist. They become like pre 94s more or less. I could be making a leap but I am not sure

 

[drgrant]

I see what you mean now. No, there’s no reason to reverse compliance work before 8/1.

There's plenty of "reasons" to repair a rifle. Whether its legal or not and whether someone is comfortable with that or not is a whole other story.

 

[pastera]

Hmm...
What about 71...

1526 Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer
1527 in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large
1528 capacity feeding device.
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under
1531 section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style
1532 firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with
1533 section 121C.

Seems to me that 'shall be registered' means 'in the future when there's a registry in place'.
Doesn't say 'is registered' or 'has been registered'...

Read the definition for assault-style where it covers enumerated guns and their copies and duplicates

That's where the 7/20/16 language comes in.
So if you have something that meet the features definition of assault-style isn't an enumerated gun or a copy/duplicate you are fine as ong as it is in the transaction portal before 8/1.

The "shall be" wording doesn't seem to be referring to a time as much as a state being listed in a registration database.

If the shall be is referring to a future act then that would give up to two years to add guns to be grandfathered since section 157 allows 1 year to implement the. Another year for people to enter everything into the registry. This interpretation would also contradict the registration requirement in the assault-style definition exemption leading one to favor the reading of "shall be" as a state of being registered rather than a future act of preforming a registration.

 

[pastera]

I am beyond confused trying to wrap my head around this bill... IANAL but wouldn't the date of 8/1 in subsection 131M be the important one here? The date of 7/20/16 (which is BS in general) only seems to reference the definitions of "assault weapons clones" to me. It seems in my interpretation that the date is only referencing the fact that any "clone" owned prior to that date will never be considered an assault weapon. "shall not be considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016".

Section 131M which CURRENTLY reads as "Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. "

The replacement language appears it will read-

Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section ; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C.

As long as the weapon was "lawfully owned" at whatever time prior to 8/1 that is. I was interested if you could add the "evil features" to an assault weapon prior to 8/1 and have it be G2G, my reading of the bill says no as it likely was not "lawfully owned". It did seem to suggest (to me) that post 7/20 rifles are fine as they were "lawfully owned" as long as in previous AWB compliance form.

Except the state interprets any enumerated gun or a copy/duplicate not to be legally possessed unless possessed and registered before the magic date when the state declared it would not prosecute prior possession (so now they are stuck with them).

The bottom line for anything enumerated or based on the same platform:
Preban: no risk
In the transaction portal prior to 7/20/16: no risk
Not in the portal by that date: moderate risk

For anything the isn't enumerated or a copy/duplicate: low risk


Just because a court might rule for you doesn't mean you won, it only means you avoided prison.
You can beat the charge but you can't avoid the ride - and that's a deep 6 figure hit.